Stewart Jackson: The Minister will know that I am fortunate to have in my constituency one of the finest mediaeval cathedrals in western Europe. In March, English Heritage and the Heritage Lottery Fund made available a package of £17.5 million for repairs to the 147 grade I and grade II listed churches and chapels. The Opposition welcome that funding, but can the Minister give the House an assurance that such investment will not be diverted to cost over-runs in respect of the Olympics, given that the total cost of repairs to churches and chapels are £900 million over—

Tessa Jowell: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's conversion to the case for the BBC Trust and the new governance for the BBC, because that is precisely the purpose of the BBC Trust. No longer are the governors of the BBC principally accountable through a rather confused relationship with the BBC itself, but they face outward to the licence fee payer who fund everything that the BBC does—more or less everything that it does.

Tessa Jowell: The Opposition can be reassured. The BBC is completely relaxed about the timing of the licence fee settlement and it is fully aware that arrangements are now in train to recruit a new chairman for the BBC. Those negotiations on the licence fee will continue and I hope that they will be concluded very soon, within the terms that I set out to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North (Jim Sheridan).
	On the day after Michael Grade stepped down as chairman of the BBC, I put in train the arrangements for his replacement. The advertisements will go out early in the new year—[Hon. Members: "The Guardian."]—in a very wide range of newspapers, as is consistent with the guidance of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, and we hope for an appointment in the spring. The difference between being in opposition and in government is that the Opposition panic but the Government get on with the job.

John Grogan: Can my hon. Friend assure me that both OFT and Ofcom will carefully scrutinise whether BSkyB, as the largest shareholder in ITV now, has material influence over it; and whether there are potential conflicts of interest, such as in the tendering of the ITN news contract in 2008, the sale of sports rights, or the fact that whereas BSkyB is opposed to the Government's plans for digital switchover, ITV is very much in favour of them and is even in discussions with the BBC about possibly launching a Freesat service?

William Cash: I have just returned with the European Scrutiny Committee from a visit to Berlin. Would the Foreign Secretary endorse the idea, which we heard there quite a lot, that the acquis is inviolable? Would she rule out in principle the idea that Westminster legislation should be passed in the House to override the European Communities Act 1972 as and when required, and to require the judiciary to give effect to it?

Kelvin Hopkins: My right hon. Friend will be aware that Chancellor Merkel has suggested not just that a revised version of the constitution be driven forward, but that she wishes to use the German presidency to drive all member states to join the eurozone. Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to Mrs Merkel that we have no intention of joining the eurozone, and that if the Germans want to reduce their unemployment they would do well to withdraw from the eurozone and reduce their interest rates?

Tessa Jowell: I wish to make some progress now, but I am not surprised by the number of interventions, because I have received hundreds of representations from Members and the public on why digital cannot be enjoyed by everyone. The simple truth is that some 25 per cent. of homes are not covered by the digital terrestrial signal and will not be until the analogue signal is turned off. That means that, at present, while 100 per cent. of households are paying for BBC digital television services through their licence fee, only three quarters of them can actually get a free service through their aerials. In the interests of basic fairness and choice, we must ensure that access to free-to-air digital TV is as near universal as it can be.
	Such a move will benefit the UK in many other ways too. Efficient digital broadcasting will free up spectrum for other uses. Possibilities include high definition television; more national and, especially, local digital terrestrial television, which is strongly supported by the public; new services such as mobile TV; or wireless broadband services. We simply will not be able to meet the consumer demand for such developments unless digital switchover proceeds.
	The economic benefits are also clear. The regulatory impact assessment completed in September last year described a boost to the UK economy as a whole of some £1.7 billion as a consequence of digital switchover. There are also advantages to broadcasters in not having to continue investing in outdated analogue technology and ending wasteful simulcasting in analogue and digital. Making best use of any newly available spectrum is clearly critical and Ofcom will tomorrow begin a consultation to ensure we get the very best out of what is called the digital dividend.
	Many households in Britain do not need persuading of the case to switch, as they are already choosing the benefits of digital, but because switchover needs to happen everywhere if all are to benefit, Digital UK is leading a major information campaign to ensure that, across the country, people know what is happening, what they need to do and when they need to do it. We should not, however, underestimate the scale of the challenge, which is comparable to conversion to North sea gas or decimalisation. It is a process that requires proper planning and co-ordination. Broadcasters, transmission companies, the Government, Members of the House, Ofcom—and, of course, individuals and families—all have a part to play. We have to mobilise a whole network of information and support right across the country.

Tessa Jowell: I do not accept the hon. Lady's conclusion. She will know that Ofcom will publish tomorrow the first stage of its digital dividend review and it will seek to answer some of these complex questions. Those questions also fit with decisions that will be taken about the disposal of spectrum and the opportunities that should be given to the widest range of interests—mobile phone companies as well as the public service and other broadcasters—to improve the service to their viewers through the acquisition of more spectrum.
	Frankly, it is too early for me to come to the Dispatch Box to give any kind of categorical assurance about how spectrum will be used, but we all know about the enormous consumer demand for high-definition TV. However, high definition is already responding with technologies that improve the levels of compression and therefore the efficiency with which the spectrum is used. Therefore, as the hon. Lady will remember from the Communications Act 2003, we need to ensure that we regulate and make decisions of public policy in a way that anticipates the rapid pace of technological advance.

Tessa Jowell: I am afraid I will now make progress; otherwise nobody else will be able to speak in the debate.

Hugo Swire: What is good news is the brevity of the right hon. Gentleman's question. It is the first time that we have exchanged words since he was switched over to the Back Benches. The answer to both his questions is yes.
	One is entitled to ask where the buck stops. If, once the analogue signal has been switched off, it is clear that a significant number of households have not been able to switch, or that there has been a massive overspend, who will take the blame? To whom should we turn for answers? I hope that the Secretary of State will listen to this, because I hope that it will be her.
	The Select Committee expressed its concern that
	"the complexity of the management structure leaves lines of accountability blurred. There need to be clearer chains of command with precise responsibilities specifically defined."
	The Committee also warned that the decision as to what the released spectrum should be used for needs to be made quickly. What action have the Government taken in response to those recommendations.
	Given the complexity of the process, it will not surprise the right hon. Lady that we have other concerns, not least the timetable. Whitehaven is supposed to be the first area in the country to undertake digital switchover in October 2007, only 10 months away. In a briefing received last week, the charities involved in switchover voiced their concern that
	"the targeted help scheme might not be ready for Borders in 2008."
	Presumably for Whitehaven to be ready to go ahead in October 2007, the BBC will have had to have received its licence fee settlement. The BBC and the Department will have had to work through the detail of how targeted help is to be carried out, and a tender process will have had to be carried out and an operating company established to undertake the process. At the same time, negotiations will have had to be concluded with parties such as Sky and NTL, as well as other subcontractors who might undertake the work on the ground. In addition, the Bill will have had to have received Royal Assent and sensitive negotiations between the Department for Work and Pensions and the BBC or its operating company will have had to be concluded for the sharing of data.
	Is the Secretary of State convinced that all of that can take place by October? What assurances can she give the House that the date for analogue switch-off will not be moved from its target date of 2012? Will she agree to report regularly to Parliament on the progress of the timetable? Because unfortunately the Secretary of State has form when it comes to delays. Not only has the licence fee decision been delayed, we are also awaiting decisions on the Tote, the national lottery operating licence, the next chairman of English Heritage and the location of the new super casino, all of which have been delayed. How can we have confidence in the right hon. Lady and her Department to deliver this vast switchover project on time with that sort of track record? If she and her Ministers were in charge, Christmas would be delayed until Easter.
	Turning to the process of targeted help, we have significant concerns that the Government could be encouraging, as was articulated by Opposition Members, a digital divide. As is well known, Ofcom wanted the Government to adopt a voucher scheme as the best way of ensuring that the process was platform neutral. As we understand it, people will instead be offered the cheapest option, a set-top box free of charge. Those opting instead for cable or satellite will receive a credit similar in value to what they would have paid for set-top box.
	One of the great difficulties with digital switchover is that the technology is very fast moving. Current freeview boxes use technology that is not compatible with high definition television. Has the right hon. Lady made any assessment of the likelihood and cost of a switchover II to enable wider spread of high definition and other new services? Has the right hon. Lady discussed any of this with the Chancellor or Treasury officials?

Russell Brown: Thank you for calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not sure whether I should declare an interest as a BSkyB subscriber, but that said, although I have access to hundreds of channels at home my good lady wife does not allow me easy access to the remote control, so I have a difficulty there.
	As the whole House knows, digital switchover comes to the Border television region first and I am encouraged that colleagues on both sides of the House are here to take part in today's debate. I believe that digital switchover is a major step forward in communication. It brings choice to people, a choice which has been restricted for so many people in the past. That said, I think that we all share the great anxiety that exists out there, and while cost is an issue, by far and away the greatest concern is people's ability to cope with the technology. I know from contact that I have had with constituents over the past 18 months or so, especially the elderly, that that is of great concern to them.
	The Border television region is unique because it covers both sides of the border, as the name indicates, but in my area—I am sure it is the same in Cumbria, as it may well be in the Scottish borders—some people cannot even obtain an analogue signal, so television viewing is impossible for them. However, I know from experiences in my constituency that those who can receive a decent analogue signal get a wide variety of viewing. They get BBC 1 Scotland as well as BBC 1 from the north. They get BBC 2 Scotland as well as BBC 2 from the north. Of course they get ITV Channel 4 and Channel 5. So for some people, the current analogue signal is an excellent service, and of course their anxiety is shared by all: will they still be able to have those services when digital switchover takes place?
	My view, which is informed by discussions that I have had with Digital UK and with those who run Border television, is that there is an element of confidence that those who get a good signal at the moment will see an improvement. But the big question has to be, will those who get nothing at the moment get something when digital switchover happens?
	Freeview is extremely limited in my constituency. Living north of the border, people are keen to retain BBC 1 Scotland, but anyone who has freeview at the moment is actually picking up the signal from Cumbria, and as a result they do not get BBC 1 Scotland. I am assured that the engineering technology will improve as time progresses, and as some of the wavebands being used by analogue signals are freed up. Even though it is not achievable today, when the time comes, there will be a vast difference and freeview will be available to households and communities where it does not exist at the moment. So for those who have a poor service at the moment, the prospects are definitely rosy.
	I commend Digital UK for all its work. It has been on the ground now for many months, working hard—a small team, led by one man. He and his team are finding it difficult to get around because the Border television region is vast. They are working well, along with charities, to assist in disseminating information to the wider public.
	In the summer of 2004, I and Lord Cunningham, the then Member for Copeland, went to meet Lord McIntosh, who was then the Minister responsible. Both Lord Cunningham and I were somewhat anxious about the Border television area being first in the switchover. My anxiety was due simply to the fact that my constituency is a low-wage economy, so I was concerned about what the costs would be for households. We asked Lord McIntosh what support might be given, and I am delighted that the financial assistance that he appeared to indicate more than two years ago is being discussed today in relation to this Bill. It should help the most vulnerable households in our communities.
	In recent months, the costs to households have been highly exaggerated. There have been reports in my local press of exaggerated costs of £700, £800 or £900 per household. That does no one any good. It merely opens the way for cowboy operators to knock on the doors of vulnerable people, especially the elderly, and to offer them a half-price package, there and then. For what? For absolutely nothing. Such operators cannot deliver anything. Whenever I can, I try to put the word out to constituents that while we are only a couple of years away from switchover, they need not rush into anything at present.
	The elderly are vulnerable, but not only to cowboys. When mailshots arrived from Digital UK back in May, Sky soon followed with a mailshot to households that were not subscribers. Again, people were offered an introductory package for a cut price. People did sign up, and they will have digital TV when the switchover comes, and they have it now. People seize such opportunities. It is important that all Members encourage people not to buy any new equipment that might not be compatible when switchover happens. The clear message is that people should only use reputable companies; they should not be conned by others who might be offering a deal that is worthless.
	Another big issue relates to estates where local authorities or registered social landlords have operated systems with communal aerials. Who will be responsible for all that? The Secretary of State has indicated today that more work needs to be done on that. Within the past two years, however, the biggest registered social landlord in Dumfries and Galloway has written to every tenant and has basically said, "When your current communal aerial breaks down, we will no longer be responsible." Even now, therefore, households are under pressure to do something. Those tenants, who were previously tenants of a local authority, have been abandoned by their current landlord.

Paul Holmes: The Bill is a narrow part of the much wider digital switchover process. The Liberal Democrats welcome the principle of the Bill and the benefits that switchover will bring, such as extra choice of television channels and programmes, enhanced reception quality and a more efficient allocation of the spectrum. Digital is already popular with the citizens of the United Kingdom. Up to 75 per cent. of households have already converted at least one TV to digital—whereas in Australia, for example, which has a similar theoretical timetable for switchover, only 29 per cent. of households have voluntary switched so far.
	It is agreed—by the panel that advises the Government, for example—that contacting people directly using the information provided for in the Bill is the best way to avoid there being a lengthy process involving people making claims and proving their eligibility. It will also help to minimise the problem, which some Members have referred to, of rogue traders trying to exploit the process to con vulnerable people during switchover.
	However, although we support the principle behind the Bill, the whole process is late, vague and offers the Government a blank cheque to impose costs on licence fee payers. It also offers the Government carte blanche to change key parts of the process more or less at will after the Bill has been enacted. It imposes a reverse burden of proof, in direct contradiction of the standards of British criminal law. The technical specifications for the equipment to be used are as yet unknown, and organisations representing the elderly and the disabled fear that many people will be excluded from receiving help because of the provisions and the lesser-known detail behind them about who will be helped.
	The Bill and the process of which it is a part are late. Switchover is one of the biggest Government projects of its kind. In an earlier Westminster Hall debate reference was made to the British Gas switchover when North sea gas came on-stream, which I just remember as I was a young child at the time, and this is probably the second biggest such experiment—yet the Government have shown little leadership and progress has so far been extremely slow.
	Switchover was first discussed in 1999—almost eight years ago. Why has it taken until now for this essential scheme to be put in place? Why are so few details about it available when it needs to be put in place very quickly? Will there be time to implement the scheme properly before switchover starts in the borders in 2008? That question is especially relevant as the Bill is fairly poorly defined and so many details about how the process will work in practice have not yet been produced—or even discussed, possibly.
	As an aside, let me give one small example of the frustration that is being felt by people around the country about the lack of information on how the process will work. My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has raised that point. He represents a large rural community where there is a village called Elsdon, which is in a valley. At present, with the analogue signals, its inhabitants cannot get signals from either one of two possible transmitters, so they have clubbed together and put an aerial up on a hillside and they run relays down to the houses so that they get their signal.
	What will happen when digital switchover occurs? Presumably, the analogue aerial and the relays that they have put in will be redundant and there will not be a direct digital replacement. Will they be compensated for that? When inquiring of the Government what will happen, they have been able to get only one piece of information—it has been suggested, "Well, you can always get a Sky dish." However, many people who live in rural areas live in national parks and they might be told by the park authorities that they cannot do that. The situation in Elsdon is just one small example, but similar situations affect a considerable number of people in villages across the country, and they do not know what will happen. The people of Elsdon have made provision for themselves under the analogue system, but they do not know what the outcome will be after switchover.
	The Whitehaven scheme has been referred to. Because of the time scale that it will have to begin under, inevitably it will have to use existing technology, rather than the specified technology that will result from Government specification for the main part of the switchover. Presumably, it will also use a different support scheme than that which will be developed for the majority of the switchovers. So, although we have had two small pilots, there will be no large trial run, which Whitehaven could have been, because the procedure and equipment will differ from that applying to the main switchover. Surely the Department for Culture, Media and Sport could have started this process much earlier, given that the switchover plans have been discussed for some six, seven or eight years.
	The details provided in the Bill and in other aspects of the switchover are vague. Although the Bill is purely about sharing information, rather than the switchover itself, it needs to specify more clearly exactly who is and is not going to receive help. In September 2005, the Department of Trade and Industry's digital television website suggested some of the groups that the support scheme would help. A Government answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) suggested that up to 7 million UK households might qualify—25 per cent. of the total number of UK households. Why, therefore, a year later, are the details not included in this Bill?
	For example, what exactly is defined as a severe disability, and which disabilities will be excluded? Disability bodies have written to me—I presume that they have written to all Members present—pointing out that 30 per cent. of blind and partially sighted people who could benefit from the scheme will not be identified by the Department for Work and Pensions database, to which the Bill refers. On the other hand, if provision were made for data sharing with local government, many of the 30 per cent. who would otherwise be missed could be picked up. Similarly, representations have been made to the effect that allowing certificates of visual impairment as a passport into the scheme would solve a lot of problems, because many who get that certificate do not then use it as a way to qualify for registration on the DWP database. We understand that the Disability Rights Commission has discussed this issue privately with the Department and that it has been reassured that it will be looked at favourably; however, the Bill says nothing about it. Hopefully, the Minister will be able to reassure us on it at the end of the debate.
	Without knowing whom the Bill will help, we do not know exactly what data we will be agreeing to disclose when the Bill passes through Parliament, or exactly whom we are agreeing should receive such help. If such details are to be dealt with through a statutory instrument, a draft of it should be available to us before the Bill is considered in Committee in January. How can we be sure that the Bill will cover all those who should receive help? Will women's refuges, residential care homes, households receiving money through the Child Support Agency and all disabled people be included? We understand that, in fact, only the severely disabled will be included, but the question then arises of how we define that category. Will all vulnerable elderly people under the age of 75 be included, as well as all elderly people over 75 who are not claiming benefits? Will socially isolated people be included, especially those with low literacy levels? We do not know the details of who will or will not be included.
	Will there be different levels of help, and will all help be means-tested? If a person who qualifies has already switched their equipment, will they be able to claim back their outlay? We understand not, but it has been suggested that although they cannot claim back the outlay on switching one TV in their home, they might be entitled to have a second set switched and also to advice on using the new equipment. I am not sure, but I thought that the Secretary of State said earlier in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore) that that would not be the case. Again, some clarification at the end of the debate would be very welcome to a lot of people, because potentially this issue will affect many.
	Although the Ofcom digital switchover tracking survey uses a sample of only just over 8,000 people and might not therefore be typical—moreover, conducting such a survey might well have raised those people's awareness of this issue in the first place—it showed that 86 per cent. of people on disability living allowance or attendance allowance have already paid to convert the primary TV set in their home. By way of comparison, only 39 per cent. of those aged over 75 have done so, so a considerable number of the Bill's target audience—especially among disabled people, who tend to be more housebound and reliant on the TV for aspects of their social life—have already paid for conversion. Many people are interested to know whether they are excluded from any further Government help, or whether they can get further help under the scheme.
	I turn to an issue that has already been touched on. What are the Government doing to inform people who could benefit from the scheme that, if they wait until they switch, they will get help, whereas if they go ahead now they might not get any support.

Paul Holmes: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but given that 75 per cent. of households have already switched to digital it would be remiss of the BBC or any other provider not to advertise its digital services. In terms of encouraging the 25 per cent. who have not switched to do so, it would be remiss of anyone involved in broadcasting not to advertise what will, in just a few years' time, be the only source of television broadcasting.
	Ofcom has estimated an average cost of £100 per household, although that figure could rise to £300 if aerials have to be altered. Some 10 per cent. of aerials are likely to require modification. For the 7 million households that might be affected by the Bill, that gives a total cost of £700 million. Another hon. Member suggested £6 million and I have heard higher figures suggested. When will the Government produce some figures? The Secretary of State, in parliamentary answers, has said that the Government cannot reveal the estimated cost because that would bias the tendering process that will get under way shortly. In many tendering processes, the estimated costs are disclosed to enable the bidders to put together a package that meets or betters the expectations and estimates. In many instances, it is part of the bidding process in both the private and public sectors. As long as all bidders are given the same estimated costs, it would not breach competition rules and would not give one person an advantage over another. Given the estimated costs to Parliament so we can take an informed decision during the passage of the Bill, it will surely not prejudice any issues on the bidding process.
	The Bill effectively gives the Secretary of State carte blanche to alter at will major and significant parts of the Bill once it has passed through this place. For example, clause 5(1) provides for the agreement between the BBC and the Secretary of State to be changed, without the consent of Parliament, at the whim of the Secretary of State and without any further recourse to Parliament once the Bill is passed. It is intended to allow the scheme to be updated as it progresses, but effectively gives the Secretary of State total freedom to make further demands on the BBC without any parliamentary scrutiny.
	Clause 2 provides power for the Secretary of State to prescribe, by order, the precise kinds of information that can be supplied under clause 1. Once again, we do not know what information the Secretary of State might, at any given stage, decide to prescribe, and the clause gives the Secretary of State total freedom to prescribe far more information than Parliament, if it were allowed to discuss the matter, might be willing to give at this stage. When the Bill has been through Committee and Third Reading it will be too late—we will no longer be able to contribute to the process. The Bill is far too permissive in the powers that the Secretary of State wishes to accord herself.
	Discussions between the Secretary of State and the BBC have been happening late in the process, but they have not been made public. It looks as though Parliament is to debate the Bill, vote it through and take it through Committee without being privy to all the detail of what is happening, what the requirements are and what the costs will be. Parliament should have much more clarity on those issues rather than be asked to give the Government a free hand to do as they like.
	With regard to illegal disclosure of information issues, the Bill asks the House to abandon the tried and tested standard of UK law—that people are innocent until proven guilty. That will be subject to detailed discussion in Committee in January, but if satisfactory answers are not forthcoming at that stage, the Government can be assured that that part of the Bill will face a very rough ride in the other place, where the Government have already suffered setbacks in recent years in their attempt to introduce the concept of "guilty until proven innocent" in other contexts.
	Other issues arise. One of the defences under the Bill is that the person concerned can say, "I believed that I was acting lawfully", but how can we establish what a person believed in retrospect? Do we just take the person's word for it? How will proof of innocence be tested, or is it meaningless? If it is not an offence to release summary data that do not contain personal information for regions, how will the reverse burden of proof be applied if a summary allows people to be identified because of the very small number affected in certain areas? How contextual will the offence be and how can it be applied fairly when data sets are so variable in size across the country?
	The Bill does not make specific provision to prosecute a sub-contractor—I understand that it was intended to and may be amended later—but only the people directly employed by the BBC or the Secretary of State. What, then, will prevent sub-contractors from using or selling the sensitive information that we will pass to them if they are not specifically named in the Bill in that way? Many sub-contractors throughout the country will receive lists of names and addresses of vulnerable people in their areas—sensitive information that we in Parliament must be sure cannot be abused by anyone further down the supply chain.
	It is not an offence under the Bill deliberately or maliciously to inform a contractor or sub-contractor that the data may be used or disclosed freely, so there needs to be a way to prosecute employees of the BBC or the Secretary of State who misinform contractors about their responsibilities. If the detail is not clear before Committee stage, we need a draft of the statutory instrument that will clarify the prescribed data and all the offences so that we are clear, before we agree to the Bill's passage, about how those offences would operate.
	Many technical issues arise from the process. Late as it is, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has not given the industry a clear brief about the specifications for the equipment required for the big switchover that will affect up to 7 million households, yet the Department of Trade and Industry stated earlier that the industry would need quite a lead time in order to develop that equipment. That was a year ago, but up to now the industry has not been given the specifications to start working on it.
	There is a danger of all that becoming a classic Government information technology procurement fiasco—as with the individual learning accounts or the Department for Work and Pensions and NHS projects—as costs spiral out of control because the brief for the equipment is too vague or undefined at the start or keeps changing throughout the process. We must avoid the problem of the Government constantly amending the contracts.
	Given the present vague data available to work on and the increasingly short time scale within which to operate the scheme, there is a danger that the industry will not want to bid for the delivery. We need clear terms for the scheme and we need to know what the contractors will be expected to deliver for a fair tendering process. If DCMS wants to shift its risks on to the contractor, it must also hand over full control of the project—otherwise DCMS must retain responsibility, as well as control. Which of the two is it to be? It cannot be both. Will there be a choice of equipment at switchover and will the equipment be usable by the full range of elderly and disabled people who are eligible under the scheme? For example, although it is not strictly part of digital switchover, there is a very large Government procurement programme for the equipment, so what a wasted opportunity if the Government do not specify as part of their requirements that the equipment should have a return path capability built into it. If that happened, the people who secured access to digital in that way could also start to access all the e-government that local government, for example, has been obliged to provide. Those people could then access it from home via that method.
	What training provision will be put in place to help people use the new equipment? I am thinking of my 80-year-old mother, who lives in Sheffield. I tried to explain it all to her last weekend. One quick explanation of how the equipment works once it is installed will simply not be enough. I understand that the two small pilot projects that have taken place found exactly that—that one explanation to people in that category is insufficient.
	Finally, environmental issues also have to be considered. Let us start with just the single issue of set-top boxes, which cost a typical household £30 extra in electricity while they are on standby around the clock. If we multiply that by however many millions of houses use it, the figures start to reach hundreds of millions of units of energy consumption unnecessarily wasted unless the right specifications switch off after a set period or, if that is not possible because of the delayed recording capabilities, switch to the minimum power stand-down in a short period of time. The industry tells me that it is perfectly feasible, but will the Government enforce the specifications when they are eventually sorted out?
	A third of recently tested digital TVs did not meet strict energy efficiency criteria. The Government should have taken the lead in encouraging the industry to produce cleaner and greener equipment. Carbon emissions will go up as a result of digital switchover. The production of waste electronics, as defined in the WEEE directive that was mentioned earlier, will inevitably increase as a result of the switchover from analogue to digital.
	The Government knew for a long time that there was going to be a problem with recycling fridges, but they waited for years until the last minute, so we saw the nonsense of fridge mountains around the country. There was one in my Chesterfield constituency, awaiting the provision of the equipment necessary for recycling. More recently and on a slightly smaller scale, we had the same problem with the recycling of car parts, oil, brake linings and so forth. The DCMS and the DTI must learn from the farce of the fridge mountain and ensure that we do not have a WEEE mountain, to coin a phrase.
	Finally, we support the Bill's principle of switchover, but so much more detail is needed—and very quickly if the Committee is only two or three weeks away in January—if we are to consider the Bill in a worthwhile way. If the major project that is to be delivered by the Bill is to happen, we need to know the specifications and costs, but as yet, they are a complete mystery to us all.

John Whittingdale: As has been said, the purpose of the Bill is relatively narrow, given that it focuses on one specific aspect of digital switchover. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael) touched on some of the important aspects of the process under the Bill, which I will return to. However, the Bill also gives us a welcome opportunity to debate digital switchover.
	Switchover is a huge undertaking. The Secretary of State compared it to North sea gas conversion, as she has done in the past, while others have made comparisons with decimalisation. The project is likely to affect almost every household in the land. Even though the digital penetration of households is more than 70 per cent., the vast majority of the households that the Government deem to be digital still have analogue devices lurking in upstairs rooms, kitchens, or children's bedrooms. Those sets will have to be converted, unless they are to stop working when switchover occurs.
	The fact that the project was huge was the reason the Culture, Media and Sport Committee chose to make it the subject of our first inquiry in this Parliament. Since then, we have had a useful debate with the Minister about several points raised in Westminster Hall in July. However, as far as I am aware, today's debate is the first opportunity that we have had to discuss the matter in the Chamber. I am glad that we are putting that oversight right.
	There are some who still question whether digital switchover is necessary at all. Those who do so are not necessarily luddites who are resistant to new technology. Indeed, some of our most distinguished broadcasters and experts have raised doubts about the necessity of switchover. Only last month, in  The Parliamentary Monitor, David Elstein, in his usual apocalyptic fashion, wrote:
	"The process is immensely complex, and fraught with difficulty. The dangers of over-running the estimated timescale ... or consumer revolt; or over-spending; or of partial or complete failure, are far too high for comfort ... What we have here is the makings of a fiasco, beside which the Dome will be relegated to the status of a footnote in the petty cash column."
	When David Elstein originally gave evidence to the Committee, I could see the colour draining from the faces of several Members who were listing to him. I do not share his pessimism. I think that the project can be made to work and that there are good reasons for proceeding with it.
	There are two principal justifications for the project. First, there is a need to extend coverage of freeview to nearly the entire country. There is a target that freeview should cover 98.5 per cent. of the country. Given that large parts of my constituency are among the 25 per cent. of the country that does not get freeview, I understand why people who cannot get it resent being bombarded with advertisements about the joys of what they can see on BBC3 and BBC4. Those people have to commit to a freesat or Sky subscription if they are to access those channels. There is clearly a benefit of extending freeview coverage to as much of the population as possible.
	The second justification for the project, which is probably the stronger one, is the need to free up the spectrum. As the proportion of people who have opted to switch to digital continues to climb—it is more than 70 per cent. now—it becomes harder to justify using a prime chunk of the spectrum for the dwindling number of people who have not chosen to switch over. Given that that spectrum is a valuable resource for which there would be several alternative uses, there was always going to be a time, sooner or later, when we said to people, "Look, it is not in the country's interest that you go on sitting on that spectrum when it could be used for many more beneficial purposes." To that extent, I accept the Government's case.
	We must recognise, however, that there are considerable costs attached to the project. A range of estimates has been made, but I think that everyone agrees that the costs will be in the billions of pounds. There are also risks attached to the project. The hon. Member for Houghton and Washington, East (Mr. Kemp) flagged up the fact that a specific disadvantage of switchover is that families will no longer be able to use video cassette recorders to record one programme while they are watching another following the move to digital. More advanced technology will be required to do such a thing. Other devices, such as personal video recorders, allow one to do so at present, to an extent.
	The project will require people to take something of a leap of faith. Households that cannot get freeview at the moment will be told that when switch-off occurs—I share the preference of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth for using the description "switch-off", rather than "switchover"—they will suddenly find that they will have access to it. It is very difficult for them to know for certain before switch-off takes place.
	For that reason it was sensible of the Minister to bring forward to 2007 the switch-off in a specific location, Whitehaven, so that some of the difficulties will be flagged up and we will have time to address them. Whitehaven is served by one transmitter and comprises about 25,000 households. It is a brave choice by the Minister because it is in that part of the country that does not get freeview now, so these are households that are in precisely the category that I described. They will be told that they have to prepare for an event—that they must go out and get their freeview box and be ready for when the switch is turned. But they will not know whether the freeview box will work until switch-off occurs. There are some for whom freeview may not work. They will have been told that all they need to do is buy a freeview box, but actually they may have inferior aerials, and it may require more investment, and the replacement of an aerial and all the attached cabling, before they have access to digital terrestrial television.
	When we examined the issue in the Select Committee we were told that there was to be a crafty device whereby broadcasters would transmit a signal that would tell people whether their aerial was good enough. A warning light would show to say, "You have a poor aerial. You need to go out and buy a new one." That would at least forewarn them and enable them to take action in advance of switchover. Unfortunately, I am now told, it has not been possible to develop such a signal.
	That means that if people are to take action ahead of switchover, they will have to go out and do something about it. They will have to get hold of an aerial signal strength meter, plug it in and test their aerial. They may have an inkling already, depending on the quality of the picture that they are now getting. If someone has a very fuzzy picture, the chances are that they will not be able to get freeview. It is possible, however, that people will sit there, having turned on their television in hope, believing all that they have been told—that freeview will suddenly appear on their screens the day after switchover—to find that they get nothing at all. That is a considerable risk for the Government because people will not be very pleased if that is the outcome.
	I will be interested to hear from the Minister whether the Government intend to try to encourage people to test their aerial if they have any doubt about it; what arrangements will be put in place for testing aerials; and, for instance, whether installers might carry out a test for free in the hope that if an aerial failed the test, they might be employed to fit a new one. Reference has already been made to the danger of cowboys, and we need to know whether such matters will be taken into account by the accreditation scheme being operated by the Confederation of Aerial Installers.
	The Minister will be aware that I have in the past expressed concern about the consequences for those people who live in multiple dwelling units and have access to communal television aerial systems. That, too, has been mentioned in the debate. It is a major concern, not only for those who live in rented housing, but obviously for those in buildings that accommodate large numbers, such as hospitals, prisons and hostels. Elderly persons' homes, in particular, need to be thought about well ahead of switchover.
	It appears that in privately rented housing there will be no obligation on the landlord to install an updated communal aerial system. Nor has any consideration been given to the requirements for passing on costs. That has been mentioned already and it needs to be thought about. There are also big questions for those living in social housing. That has thrown up new queries.
	My attention was drawn to proposals by the London borough of Camden, which has helpfully published on the net a report setting out how it intends to replace existing communal TV aerials with an integrated reception system. This is an all-singing, all-dancing system that will provide Camden's housing tenants with choice. They will be able to enjoy freeview or have satellite, all within one system. To some extent, I applaud Camden for taking account of the need to provide their tenants with choice. The system is platform-neutral, which I also regard as important. Camden has also tried to take account of the future development of new services, to ensure that its tenants will be able to enjoy them.
	All those things are to be welcomed. The problem, of course, is that, as Camden itself says, the cost of installing these integrated reception systems in all its properties runs to several million pounds. It proposes to pay for them by imposing on tenants a service charge of about £1 a week. Leaseholders in the borough will have to pay a £300 installation cost and then a maintenance charge. I understand, or at least Camden understands, that for those on low incomes, the service charge will be met by housing benefit, but that is something I would like confirmed.
	Even those who are not on low incomes, or at least not eligible to receive housing benefit, are being asked to pay over £50 a year in extra costs. As was pointed out to me, some of them may not want to subscribe to Sky or take advantage of the most sophisticated systems; they may just want basic freeview. They will be required to pay more to subsidise the people who take out subscriptions. In some cases, the poorer tenants will be subsidising the richer ones. Understandably, that has caused some resentment and is seen to be unfair. I will take advantage of my position on the Opposition Benches and say that I do not have a solution to that problem, but it is just one example of the resentments that will be caused by this process.
	We have learned a little more detail this afternoon about the assistance package. The Government are correct: clearly it is necessary to provide assistance to those people who will struggle to afford the new equipment required as a result of switchover. The Government have now finally given us an estimate of the likely cost of that package. The Secretary of State said that it would be £600 million. That is a considerable sum. It represents about a fifth of the proceeds of the licence fee in one year, although obviously it will be spread over several years.
	In my view that sum should not be met from the licence fee. Although I commend the Government for wishing to give assistance to people on low incomes, I believe that it is, as has been said, a social policy decision—a welfare decision. One can argue that the BBC should meet the broadcasting costs of switchover—the conversion of transmitters and the provision of information through Digital UK—but providing assistance is clearly a welfare cost. Indeed, that has already been recognised by the Government, who pay a subsidy to the BBC for their decision to make free licences available to those aged over 75.
	The fact that the Government have decided to put the cost on to the BBC has led to what I suspect the Minister will privately agree has been a rather unedifying spectacle—that of the BBC using digital switchover almost as a bargaining chip in the negotiations on the licence fee settlement. It gave rise to the director-general saying in a recent speech:
	"We can't rob existing core services to pay for switchover. In the event of a low settlement, the BBC Trust will face some difficult choices around delivering the broad mission".
	To some that read almost like blackmail. It sounded as though the BBC was saying, "Unless we get the sum we've asked for, we're not going to give you switchover."
	The Secretary of State earlier was very robust in the other area where the BBC had made threatening noises—the proposed move to Manchester. I welcome the fact that she has essentially told it that it is going to move, like it or not. However, she rightly said that although the BBC will pay the switchover costs—as I say, I do not agree with that, but I accept that it is the Government's decision—that funding will be fully transparent and will be ring-fenced. That ring-fencing will mean that the BBC will be given the necessary money, and so cannot say, "Switchover prevents us from doing other things, because we've not had our full settlement." I hope that when people pay their licence fee, it will clearly be identified that a particular element of it is to be used to meet the switchover cost.

John Whittingdale: If the BBC can demonstrate that the assistance package will cost more than it was told it would, it is entitled to expect the ring-fenced sum to be increased to take account of that, but one rather hopes that we are speaking of hypotheticals, as £600 million seems a huge amount as it is. As I was saying, I hope that the system will be fully transparent, and the same point was made by the Voice of the Listener and Viewer. The system needs to be clear, so that licence-fee payers can see precisely how much of their licence fee payment will go towards paying for digital switchover, and how much will go towards paying for the BBC.
	The measures in the Bill are necessary because when the Government drew up the assistance package, they chose to make it a targeted scheme. Clearly, in a targeted scheme, the first thing that must be done is to identify the target. The United States of America decided to put aside $1.5 billion to give coupons to pay for set-top boxes to all households that will lose analogue signal as a result of switchover. Before the Minister rushes off to say that I am proposing additional expenditure, I should say that I am not. I do not necessarily suggest that we follow the example of the USA. However, the Government's choice of a targeted scheme, and particularly a means-tested one, inevitably creates problems, the first of which relates to take-up. Let us first consider those who qualify for assistance because they are disabled. The Government propose to identify them by identifying those who receive disability living allowance, or attendance allowance, but as the Minister will know, part of the problem is that not all disabled people claim those benefits; there is still a problem of under-claiming. If people fail to claim their disability benefit, they will not be identified as requiring help under the assistance package.
	The same problem will arise for those who are over 75 and on means-tested benefits. Such people will qualify for free, rather than assisted, conversion but, again, not all pensioners take advantage of all the means-tested benefits for which they are eligible. Those people, too, will be difficult to reach, as they will not be in receipt of benefits and so cannot be identified through the social security system.
	When the Select Committee considered the targeted assistance package, we had concerns about not only the groups that the Government identified, but groups outside those categories that would be in genuine need. I come back to the concern expressed by the Ofcom consumer panel about those who are socially isolated. Such people may not have family or friends who are readily available to give them advice about what the whole process entails, and to show them how to switch the box on, plug it in and tune it, and meet all the other requirements. They will be quite frightened, as they will keep being told that the date is looming ever closer, and they will find it difficult to know where to go to receive help. That is why it is vital that we mobilise the whole voluntary sector to provide help. I know that Digital UK is already in talks with groups such as Help the Aged, Age Concern, and WRVS. In many constituencies, including mine, WRVS delivers meals on wheels, and it would be ideally placed to provide advice while it did so. It is essential that we mobilise a large number of people, and I am slightly concerned that not enough attention has yet been paid to that issue.
	I echo the worries about the delay in providing details about the assistance package. That raises concerns about whether the details will be ready in time for the beginning of switchover. The concern was expressed that they might not be ready in time for the borders region, and obviously, there is even greater concern that the details about the assistance will not be in time for Whitehaven, where switch-off will take place in less than a year's time. I hope that the Minister can provide reassurances that all those faced with switchover will be told about their eligibility for assistance in good time.
	As I say, I commend the Government on deciding to proceed with switchover. I was a sceptic to begin with—I foresaw a huge number of problems, and I still foresee some, but we are now at a point when switchover clearly makes sense. It would be easy for the Government to say, "Let's just do nothing; let's leave it for other countries to go first," but they decided to take a risk. I do not want to depress the Minister, but the speed at which technology is advancing means that before too long, digital terrestrial television, too, may be seen as a somewhat old-fashioned technology. We are experiencing the beginnings of the launch of internet protocol television, and before too long, people may increasingly choose to get their television down wires. That will give them much greater ability to set their own schedules and access video on demand.
	Satellite already offers high definition television. Whether or not it is decided to make HDTV available on the digital terrestrial platform, it is unlikely that there will ever be sufficient spectrum available on DTT to match the kind of HDTV offerings that will be available on satellite; there could only be a small number of such channels on DTT. People who want access to more choice and better quality services may in time migrate from DTT to IPT, satellite, cable or some other offering, and before too long, we could well be returning to the Chamber to debate the switch-off of the digital terrestrial signal. However, that is still a little way off. I hope that everything will proceed smoothly, and I hope that the Select Committee's recommendations have contributed towards achieving that aim. Switchover is in the national interest, but the Minister does not need me to tell him that there is a considerable political risk, if it goes wrong.

John Robertson: If the Minister will allow it, I shall say a few points about some speeches that have been made, because it is important that points made are answered or at least discussed. I shall say at the outset that I agree with the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael) about the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire), whose remarks were very negative. He did not contribute to a debate, but asked a group of questions to which he obviously already had answers, although he hoped that he might hear something different from what he had in his brief. He did not make a positive contribution, and that is sad, because this important piece of legislation will affect every person in the nation, and should therefore be treated with a certain amount of respect. Questions may be asked, and we expect the Opposition to do that, but certainly not in the way that he did.
	The hon. Gentleman reminded me of Private Frazer in "Dad's Army"—his attitude was "We're doomed," and that was before we even got started. He also reminded me of the pushmi-pullyu in "Doctor Dolittle", which did not know which way to go. It seemed to be saying: "I didn't like what was said, I've got all these horrible questions, and I don't agree with anything you're going to tell me, but I'll support the Bill, just in case it turns out to be a good thing—then, I'll have done my bit by supporting it."
	Other speakers have mentioned a sunset clause. I would not object to that, although it is probably a waste of time because once we are fully digitalised, the Bill will disappear. However, can my hon. Friend the Minister assure me that before we dispense with the Bill, or before the sunset clause takes effect if we introduce it, we will ensure that every single person has had the opportunity to receive digital television or a digital connection in some form, so that those who are the least well off and those who need help, as the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) mentioned, are looked after? Once that is achieved, it might be right to dispense with the Bill.
	As chair of the all-party communications group, I feel it is important that when we discuss communications, we do so from a broad perspective and have a genuine debate. Digitalisation will be a fantastic opportunity for many people. They will have access to programmes that they have never had before, and they will have quality that they have never been able to get from terrestrial TV. It will bring much happiness to many people for whom television is not just an entertainment box in the corner, but a necessity of life and one of the few things that bring them pleasure.
	We heard earlier that 18 million people receive multi-channel TV in the UK. It comes from various sources—Sky, free satellite, freeview and cable. The take-up of digital over the past year has grown to just over half—52 per cent. of television equipment sold—but 25 per cent. of homes cannot receive digital through their current aerial, and many still cannot get Channel 5. I was at the Scottish Labour party conference a few weeks ago, and I was somewhat shocked to find that I could not get Channel 5 in Oban, which I did not think was in the backwoods in the middle of beyond. If there is inadequate reception in parts of Scotland, the problem must be dealt with.
	Switchover is scheduled to take place in 2012. If that date was missed by a year or two, it would not matter to me personally. It is more important that it is done properly. Hon. Members have spoken about the time scale. The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes), the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, thought digital switchover should have happened years ago, although perhaps not in the way that we are doing it. Conservative Members thought we were being too hasty, so we have probably got it just about right.
	I shall concentrate the main part of my contribution on those who need the most help. People who have disabilities, the elderly and people on low incomes enjoy television. I have spoken on many occasions about the elderly population in my constituency, Glasgow North-West, which used to be the old Garscadden constituency, for hon. Members who remember, when my predecessor, Donald Dewar, was its Member of Parliament. If one drew a circle of about 2 miles radius round the Knightswood, Yoker and Scotstoun areas, it would mark the area with the densest concentration of elderly people anywhere in Europe—about 17,000 people over the age of 60, which I will reach in another six years. The elderly form a significant percentage of my constituents, and I would be a fool not to recognise their needs and try to help them. That is one target group which may suffer if things go wrong.

Robert Syms: At last, as my hon. Friend says. It is remarkably difficult to cost such a scheme because nobody knows exactly what demands will be made on it. The market may help, in that Sky and other companies will provide all sorts of deals against the timetable to encourage people to do what they want to do anyway. We heard about the BBC trailing series and programmes on its existing digital channels. People are given an incentive to keep changing when they see something going on that they are not part of.
	There is no doubt that substantial costs will be involved. For people who live in more sparsely populated areas where freeview is not an option, Sky may be the only option, and it is a fairly expensive one. Even if they are given help with capital costs, they are left with a substantial sum to find—and they have to pay the licence fee on top of that. For many people, the running costs of their TV will go up substantially. My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) mentioned overall costs. Many people who will not get help will have to expend sums of money to maintain something that they have got used to and see as a necessity of life.
	This is a brave decision and it is the right decision—and I hope that it is carried out in an efficient manner. However, I have one or two detailed questions. I presume that the charge against the licence fee will start off as a definable amount and will be raised over the five or six years of the ongoing scheme. Cash flow will clearly be an issue. Some of the smaller TV areas switch over first, and in 2012 we end up with those in my area—Meridian and Carlton London. It is a substantial part of the country, but a substantial number of people will need assistance. I suspect that the bulk of the money will be spent at the end of the period towards 2010, 2011 and 2012, rather than in the earlier period of 2008.
	Will the scheme be rolled out nationally or working through specific regions? If somebody in Poole who is in the Meridian area and qualifies for help wants it now, when the scheme starts, will they be able to access it although we are four or five years away from the switchover, or will they have to wait for a defined period? It would be unfair if some of the more vulnerable people in Poole who wanted to change over sooner in the knowledge that the date is looming were less able to do so than people in the west country or border regions, where it will occur at an earlier stage. I fear that a lack of help now may lead to a bunching effect whereby people put off making a decision because they know that it will be available 12 or 18 months down the line. A national scheme would be better. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us about how it is rolled out.
	I have noticed the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr. Reed) sitting quietly nodding throughout the debate. No doubt he will face difficulties that most of us will face at some stage. It would be extremely helpful to have an MPs' hotline, because I suspect that we will get involved in great detail in sorting out the problems of constituents who are aware that some crisis is going to befall them and that decisions have to be made. Today, we have had an inkling of the range of technical problems that can occur. I am sure that by 2012 we will all have become experts in the subject. A dedicated line or dedicated staff to deal with MPs' complaints would be helpful in getting us through what may sometimes be an extremely fraught period. In defining those to whom help will be available under the scheme, the Bill mostly refers to households or extended households. We must ensure that it covers hostels and houses in multiple occupation, because many people rely on communally provided services.
	The scheme is worth while and it is brave of the Government to go ahead with it. There has already been a major change, given that more than 73 per cent. of households have digital television at the moment, but there is still the challenge of ensuring that the remaining 25 per cent. are able to access it by the given dates. It is important to provide help to the less fortunate, many of whom may not be as au fait with the technology and the options before them. There will be the potential for fraud by those who wish to mislead. It is therefore important to have good information programmes so that people understand the choices instead of being told what they are. I am sure that the major reputable companies will play things straight, but some people are after a fast buck. As the scheme progresses, I hope that Ministers are alive to the fact that there will be opportunities for such people to prey on the most vulnerable and that they will crack down on that.
	With those few words, I commend what the Government are doing in this respect.

Jamie Reed: It makes a refreshing change to hear Whitehaven mentioned so often in a debate in the House of Commons—not before time, in my view. It is equally refreshing to see the emergence of a consensus on these issues. That is welcome and significant.
	This is obviously a tremendously important issue for me and my constituents, as much of my constituency—Whitehaven and the surrounding towns and villages—has been chosen to be the first area to go completely digital in October 2007, a good year ahead of the switchover for the rest of the border region. Although Whitehaven is in the vanguard of the digital switchover and is leading the nation, it is also inevitable that my constituency is being used as something of a test bed.
	I should point out that I am chairman of the recently formed all-party group on digital switchover. For the record, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), who takes an impassioned interest in this issue. He insisted that such a group should be formed and has pursued its formation with dogged perseverance. The fact that so many Members are keen to be involved in it illustrates his standing in all parts of the House.
	With regard to my constituency and my constituents, it has to be said—I have said it before and will always say it—that we are an extremely forward thinking, innovative and resilient collective. We sank the country's first deep undersea mine, we built the world's first commercial scale nuclear power station, and our hospital was the first new hospital to be built following the creation of the NHS. To put a little colour on to the subject, we are also home to England's tallest mountain and deepest lake. We are used to leading and being asked to lead, but that willingness must never be abused.
	As the first area to undergo the digital switchover, there are many advantages that Whitehaven and the surrounding towns might secure. Increasing the exposure of one of the most beautiful natural and built environments this country has to offer is undoubtedly welcome and important. The town's profile will be lifted and its reputation enhanced, the local tourism industry should be lifted and local companies involved in supplying and installing equipment for the switchover should materially and professionally benefit.
	We know that switching to digital television nationally will free up frequencies that could be used for innovations such as high definition television, wireless internet or mobile television. We know that, by moving to the best available technology, we will ensure that the UK continues to be a world leader as broadcasting technologies converge with broadband and mobile communications. All of that is understood and it is my view that my constituency should similarly be the leader in some of those areas—I will be seeking dedicated help from Government in that regard in the not-too-distant future.
	At the end of the switchover process, my constituents will be able to receive many more television channels than they do currently, putting an end, for many but not all of my constituents, to what I consider to be the scandal underpinning the current arrangements. In common with other areas that do not receive digital services, my constituents, through the payment of the television licence fee, are subsidising those digital services that are accessed by the rest of the country by and large. In my view, that is a long-standing disgrace and a genuine case of social injustice, which I am delighted to say will soon be at an end. The notion that members of the public should, by law, be required to pay a public subscription for services that they cannot use is ridiculous and indefensible. Such a tax, as it has been described, either redistributes the revenues gathered or incentivises a particular choice or behaviour, so I am gratified that this irritation will soon be remedied for my constituents.
	I welcome, too, the fact that the comprehensive help scheme outlined in the Bill will assist people aged 75 and over, those with significant disabilities and those who are registered blind or registered partially blind. It is estimated that up to 7 million households across the UK will be eligible for help with the switchover. For the purposes of my constituency, according to figures produced by Digital UK, some 6.6 per cent. of people in and around Whitehaven were aged 75 at the time of the last census—approximately 5,000 people for the whole of my constituency, so there are as many as 4,000 people of that age in those parts of my constituency who will be affected by the switchover in October next year.
	However, those are only rough estimates, and I believe that effectively to reach all my constituents and to gain detailed knowledge of which other people and other vulnerable groups qualify for targeted help, the Government are right to legislate to allow the operator of the help scheme to have access to benefits records to identify and target eligible people. In my view, that is essential for those people to receive assistance as quickly and effectively as possible. As I understand it, the Bill would allow the Department for Work and Pensions to share social security information and the Ministry of Defence to share war pension information with the BBC and the operator of the digital switchover help scheme, notwithstanding the security implications, which were raised earlier in the debate and which are very important. However, stringent data protection safeguards must be in place to prohibit organisations other than the BBC and the switchover scheme operator from using those data for any other purpose. Vulnerable groups in our society and in my constituency have enough to worry about without being given any cause for concern that some cowboy operation could obtain their personal details.
	Other details need to be clarified in Committee. We are told that some eligible households will be charged a "modest, one-off fee" for switchover assistance. The Secretary of State mentioned £40 in the debate, but we need to nail that down. If it is going to be £40, let us have that accepted and understood now. If it is not £40, I think that the definition of modest in Whitehaven might be quite different from that in Westminster.
	I also welcome the fact that the Bill attempts to meet the recommendations suggested by the switchover consumer expert panel, incorporating Age Concern, the Royal National Institute of the Blind and Help the Aged, among others. They asked for a clear duty to be placed on the Government to target and communicate with those people eligible for targeted assistance, and I believe that the Bill helps to do precisely that.
	The Bill is clearly of more immediate interest to my constituency right now than to any other constituency, so I hope that all Members will vote for the Bill to expedite the introduction of the safeguards and benefits represented in it. In addition, it is hard, if not impossible, to expect my constituents to proceed in October next year without comprehensive targeted assistance being in place. That is far from being a threat—it is mentioned constructively—it is a reality. Accordingly, I should like to make some further suggestions, which I hope to be able to take up with the Department, Digital UK and others outside the Chamber and, as I mentioned, perhaps introduce into the Bill in Committee.
	First—I shall be parochial here—as Whitehaven and the surrounding area will make the digital switch first, it is important that those people who would have qualified for help under the targeted help scheme in 2008, the original time of switchover or switch-off, do not lose out by virtue of that date being brought forward. In short, I should like the Minister to give serious consideration to considering as eligible for assistance those who are not technically eligible in October 2007, but who would have been eligible in October 2008. That seems only fair, and a small price to pay when one considers the value of this process to the UK as a whole.
	Secondly, I should like the Minister to ensure that Digital UK maximises all the local technical expertise that resides in my constituency—an approach that I think other hon. Members should adopt in their constituencies. In my constituency, that expertise is personified by people like John Clark, David Coyles and Andy Renton, who thoroughly and implicitly understand which signal covers which area from which transmitter. Without acknowledging and using the expertise of these people, the chances of success are clearly reduced, so to that end I suggest the creation of a local technical implementation group in Whitehaven and the surrounding area.
	Thirdly, I ask that serious consideration is given to lengthening the switchover period—the switchover window—to two or even three months. There are other issues for consideration, which have been broadly outlined throughout today's debate. For the purposes of my constituency those precise issues are, with regard to the October 2007 switchover, the omission of Channel 5, the need to tackle disreputable retailers and aerial installers that profiteer by selling goods that are not fit for purpose, and the confusion that surrounds many people who do not understand the difference between digital television and high definition television and all the other new formats and technologies that are developing all the time. All those issues are extremely important and cannot be solved by public relations, but only by public engagement.
	A ministerial visit early in the new year to discuss those issues with interested parties would be extremely welcome. I hope that it can be achieved and some measurable outcomes reached. At this stage, the Bill is a welcome step in ensuring that digital switchover is a success and that those who most need help receive that help. More detail will emerge and more help may be needed, but at this stage, and provided that sufficient safeguards exist for my constituents, I welcome the Bill.

Pete Wishart: I join the overwhelming majority of Members involved in this debate in welcoming the Bill. I think that that includes Members on the Conservative Front Bench, but given the almost petulant tone of the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) and the contrast with the very measured contributions by Conservative Back Benchers, I am not particularly sure.
	May I say, for what it is worth, that the Government have responded very favourably to the many calls to ensure that vulnerable groups are not left behind in the journey towards digital switchover, and I congratulate them on bringing forward the package of assistance. My only problem—it was mentioned by others—concerns the timing. The Bill should have come before the House sooner. We have heard about digital switchover at the end of 2008 in the border region and in my constituency, and in the rest of Scotland in 2010, and I really hope that these measures are in place before that switchover occurs.
	The Government's stated position is that every household should be able to enjoy the benefits of digital television, and given that the vast majority of the people of the UK now use digital television, we are starting to achieve that. So it is right and proper that we turn our attention to vulnerable groups—those who find it more of a challenge to adapt to technological change, who have concerns and anxieties about the force of progress and who really need assistance.
	We have heard that digital take-up is already proceeding. Even from this year the figures have shown an increased uptake of digital technology. We may assume from those figures that digital awareness is capable of being reached throughout the country; that public surveys are right that there is digital awareness, and that people are responding to the public information campaigns. I do not know whether they are responding particularly to Digit Al, the little cartoon figure that the Secretary of State mentioned. It is probably the irritating quality of that character that has attracted people, not its public service occupation.
	It is right that we should attend to the groups who are least receptive to public campaigns and who are the last in line to adapt to technological changes. Whereas about three quarters of the general population now have digital television, only about 40 per cent. of over-75s currently have their televisions converted to ensure that they receive digital signals. I am not sure how many people will benefit from the scheme. We have heard estimates ranging between 4 million and 8 million. Whatever number eventually receive the assistance, however, it is clear that the vast majority will be over-75s. I hope that the Government bear in mind the points made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, North-West (John Robertson) about other groups being involved, particularly the blind and those who have difficulty securing additional assistance. I hope that a range of responses from Government recognise the specific needs of certain vulnerable groups.
	We have also heard a lot of concerns about data sharing. I am not too worried about that. Given the time scale, I do not believe that the Government have any other choice. We would all criticise the Government if they were not proactive in trying to locate such vulnerable groups. I do not see that as an encroachment of the Big Brother state or an infringement of civil liberties and human rights, for which the Government have become renowned, but as a real attempt to try to locate vulnerable groups. One of the positive consequences of that approach is that it will probably help the Government to identify some of the 250,000 people, particularly pensioners, who are eligible for but do not claim benefits. That can only be a good thing.
	We have also had a thorough debate about the role of the BBC. Again, I am not too worried about who does the work; I am concerned about the quality of the work. If the BBC does a good job in identifying and locating those vulnerable groups, we will all be satisfied. The BBC also has experience, which I am sure it will bring to bear, of dealing with the over-75s in the provision of free licences. My only problem with the BBC relates to the funding issue. I take on board the many points made about the licence fee being a regressive form of taxation, which we must all endure, but why cannot the BBC administer the scheme and the Treasury make some contribution to the running of it? Why is that difficult? Why cannot we entrust the BBC, with its experience, to get on with that task, and get the Government to pay for it or at least make some contribution to ensuring that it happens?
	I also have a concern about the quality of BBC programmes in the run-up to switchover. I would describe many of the BBC's current digital services as woeful. I remember the BBC saying that supplying those future digital services was one of the reasons that it needed an inflation-busting licence fee increase. It had better get its act together, because the digital services that it supplies now are particularly inadequate.
	I am also worried about whether the BBC will be able to identify all the vulnerable groups that might need assistance. The Government assistance is tied exclusively to the benefits system, but, as I have said, many people who are entitled to benefits do not receive them. Will the BBC be able to identify and locate some of the socially isolated groups? How will it target and approach them? Of all groups described in the remit of the Bill, the socially isolated groups concern me most. Ofcom has already stated the potentially important role of community organisations, charities, neighbours and others in helping to locate those individuals. Will the Minister describe how the BBC will work with such charitable and community organisations to identify such groups?

John Grogan: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who made a thoughtful and challenging speech.
	Like the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms), who has left the Chamber—perhaps he has gone to watch "EastEnders" or "Coronation Street"—I love television. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North-West (John Robertson), who has just followed the hon. Member for Poole out of the Chamber—no doubt to watch his own favourite programme—said that digital switchover could make people happy, and I should like to think that it could. As well as entertaining people, the best television can widen their horizons and interest them in things that they never knew were interesting.
	Like the hon. Member for Poole, I think that BSkyB, which now commands 40 per cent. of television revenues, has changed the face of British television with its sport programmes and programmes from America. It does a marvellous job. However, I hope that digital switchover will enable us to maintain the finest traditions of public service broadcasting in our country, and the original British programming in which some of the other channels specialise.
	My brief speech will have two themes. The first is the great opportunity, the great British triumph—much beloved of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that digital switchover potentially offers. It builds on the success of freeview—a good example of the public-private partnership, also much beloved of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We cannot scrimp and save, however. We must plan and prepare: we must use every available day. We cannot do what the English cricket team did, arriving in Australia just a few days before the main event without proper preparation, hoping that it would be all right on the night and that it would be possible to live on past glories. We cannot adopt that approach to digital switchover and survive.
	My second theme has emerged in several other Members' speeches. There is a relationship between the success of digital switchover and ensuring that there is a proper settlement—whatever that is—for the BBC licence fee. I mentioned freeview earlier. It is fair to say that freeview is a tribute to the work of Greg Dyke when he was director general of the BBC. He built it up from the ashes of ITV Digital, and it has had many surprising effects. It has now reached such a critical mass that it is becoming the dominant digital platform, rivalling Sky. Some pay television channels, such as Film Four and UKTV Gold, are now migrating to freeview and surviving by advertising.
	Rather unexpectedly, digital television has given a great boost to digital radio—not just BBC channels, but commercial channels such as Oneword. That must be built on. Targeted help will not be enough in itself, however: three other things need to happen.
	First and most basically, the equipment must work technically and the pictures must be available on time. The cost will be huge. No one has really challenged the BBC's estimate that it will have to spend more than £4 billion to ensure that its digital switchover works. It has placed a contract worth no less than £1.7 billion just to transfer its own transmitters to digital capability, and that does not include other transmitters for which it will provide help.
	I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who said that, in an ideal world, public service channels would provide freesat. BBC and ITV are discussing that. It cannot be guaranteed that Sky will make its satellite available free for ever; it could change its commercial policy. I hope the fact that BSkyB has now secured a stake in ITV will not mean that ITV will no longer pursue that option.
	High-definition television has also been mentioned. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North-West spoke of the importance to the Olympics in 2012. Perhaps the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) is right—perhaps at some stage in the future, terrestrial digital television will be an outdated technology—but that will not be the case for 10 or a dozen years, and it will not be the case during the Olympics. Freeview is a platform that provides access to high-definition television. Ofcom is currently saying that it will auction the spectrum to the highest bidder and not reserve any for freeview. Public intervention may be necessary, but I think that that approach should be looked at again.
	Secondly, the programmes must obviously be on the digital channels if the switchover is to be a success. I disagreed with the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire when he criticised the quality of BBC digital output. I suppose he is right to the extent that there will not be thousands of people buying digital boxes to watch, for instance, BBC Parliament. I imagine that I am now speaking to no more than 20,000 or 30,000 people, although that is more than I normally speak to in Selby. Having said that, I should add that 1 million or 2 million people watched the debates on Iraq and on top-up fees.
	BBC children's services are probably more valued, particularly by parents, who welcome the absence of advertisements on those high-quality channels. "Torchwood" on BBC 3, mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael), has been a great success. The other night it was up against "Lost", which Sky One bought from Channel 4, which had bought it from the United States. It is a well-established programme, but "Torchwood", a British-made programme, beat it hands down. That demonstrates that value of the digital channels. Other examples are "The Thick Of It" and "Little Britain" on BBC 3. Last week's documentary on the abdication was typical of some of the quality on BBC 4. However, the BBC must have the resources it needs to continue to invest in programming on the digital channels if they are to be a success. Replacing low-cost programmes with programmes of the quality of "Planet Earth" for one hour a week would cost the BBC £150 million throughout the period of the next licence fee.
	There was some debate about the size of buttons on remote-control boxes and so on. That may appear to be a side issue, but during the trials of digital television that were carried out in various areas, it was one of the main issues. Some people may not want a multi-functional digital box, but want one that makes clear how channels and volume can be changed easily. One-to-one visits will be an important part of the switchover.
	Where does all that leave us when it comes to the big numbers involved in the BBC licence fee? How much will be enough to secure the success of this process? According to figures leaked by the Treasury, the BBC can expect a figure of, perhaps, RPI minus 1. In the event of a settlement requiring the BBC to meet the full costs of targeted help as well, in effect the figure would become RPI minus 2. That represents the cost of BBC 2 over the licence fee period. The BBC would be short of £400 million, which would be bound to have an effect on programming.
	I am pleased, incidentally, that the final decision has been put off. It is better to reach the right decision after Christmas than to reach the wrong decision before it. I urge Ministers to reflect carefully on the importance of a balanced package that provides value for money. Perhaps the BBC could be allowed some leeway in terms of the licence fee for targeted help and digital switchover. There need not be a permanent increase; the increase could end after the switchover period, because the BBC would not need it in the long term. The BBC's borrowing powers should also be looked at carefully. At present the BBC can borrow only £200 million a year, which is a pretty low figure given its turnover.
	A number of things could be done to help, but the settlement must be right. That is in the interests of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as much as anyone. Let us remind ourselves of the switchover timetable as we approach the next general election. We have heard that Border will be switched over in 2008, Westcountry, Wales and Granada in 2009, and West, Grampian and Scottish in 2010.
	As a Member with a small majority, I am a great believer in a five-year Parliament: I think we need every last day to implement our manifesto. Nevertheless, channels in quite a few sensitive areas will be switched over before the next election. We can imagine the furore if the BBC had to scrimp and save, if there was no investment in the digital infrastructure, if the picture did not come on at the right time, if it was a bit wavy, if the targeted-help scheme did not work, if there were more repeats because the BBC did not have the resources to put into new programming, or if there was no money to secure the sports rights for the red button. It would not be a popular move. The Government must carefully reflect over the Christmas period. They have got in place the targeted-help scheme and the Digital UK organisation; all they have to do now is will the means.

Peter Atkinson: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) and I agree with much of what he said, particularly on the BBC and its licence fee problem. I must, however, disagree with his comment that 20,000 people are tonight watching our debate on the parliamentary channel; I cannot believe that, and I think that he probably meant to say about 200. The thought that 20,000 people might be watching us terrifies me. Therefore, I shall keep my remarks brief, especially as we have properly covered much of what ought to be debated.
	I also compliment the hon. Gentleman on giving credit where credit is due—to the BBC. I am a great supporter of the BBC, and what it has done in terms of its digital channels has encouraged more people to opt for the freeview service. Without its efforts, the take-up would have been minimal in comparison with the current take-up. I disagree with the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart); if he were to do some research he would find that there are many good programmes on the BBC digital channels.
	The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael) and the hon. Member for Glasgow, North-West (John Robertson) criticised the opening remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire). I support my hon. Friend entirely. He is absolutely right to express concern about whether the Government will be able to deliver this major transition. It is a huge, multi-billion pound programme, and given the Government's track record there are considerable doubts about whether they can conclude it sensibly and properly without huge cost overruns. My hon. Friend asked questions and he was attacked for doing so, but there are questions that should be asked. We are debating this topic tonight, but so much of relevance has not been disclosed to us. The Secretary of State said that this is enabling legislation but, although we do not expect every dot and comma in such legislation to be checked by Ministers, the Bill is shot full of holes. The number of questions asked by Members of many parties highlights how much work must be done on the whole switchover project before the Bill proceeds.
	Mention has been made of the BBC television licence, which is germane to the Bill. Before the Bill was introduced, Members should have known about the BBC licence settlement because that is clearly part and parcel of the rather protracted and unhealthy negotiations that are currently going on between the Treasury, the Minister's Department and the BBC. We should have known about that. Also, doubts remain about eligibility and those who will get assistance—either free or with some contribution. Many charities are very unhappy about the definition of some of the categories of people in that regard. Nobody has said anything about the cost to the Department for Work and Pensions and the Ministry of Defence, which will have to deal with many requests to reveal information. Will they charge a fee for that, or will they absorb the costs? There is also the whole issue of the sale of the analogue channels. We have not been given the slightest idea about that, except that they will be put up for auction. What will happen? Will that be like the previous great sale which raised a colossal sum for the mobile telephone companies, or will the sums be small? All such matters are relevant information that should have been put before the House before Members moved on to this Bill. The introduction of the Bill should have been delayed until such time as we had all that information.
	I want to raise a couple of points about my constituency. Some of my constituents receive Border Television programmes, but the majority are in the Tyne Tees region. Therefore, an interesting question will be posed of some of them. The first of them will potentially be switched over in 2008, whereas the last ones will be switched over in 2012. Situations could arise in which people who live only 1 mile apart will get switched over four years apart. Today, with the analogue system, some households who can receive both, do so. They have one aerial that can receive Border and Granada, and another that can receive Tyne Tees and the BBC north-east service. I believe that there is a similar situation in the west of Scotland; parts of west Scotland can receive Ulster Television so viewers have a choice of programmes. What will happen to them? Will they still have that choice after the digital switchover happens, or will they have to opt for one service or another? The answer to that is unclear; can the Minister provide clarification?
	Many of my constituents also cannot receive freeview because they rely on a relay transmitter. That covers thousands of people living in the Tyne valley. All they can do is opt for satellite television. Some of them have even been told that they cannot receive satellite television because of their location. Therefore, some people will have a curious dilemma; they will lose their analogue, they cannot get DTT and nor can they get satellite. That will cause a problem.
	In the north Pennines there are a number of people who are among the 1.5 per cent. of the country that cannot at present receive proper analogue signals. What will happen to them? I am not a great technical expert, but I am told that even if they can get some poor quality analogue pictures, as soon as the new signal comes on, their screens will go blank, so they will have no option other than to switch to a satellite service.
	That brings me on to another point about eligibility for receiving help. The Secretary of State did not make the following matter clear. If a constituent over 75 is eligible for help—presumably that will be the case—but they cannot receive digital terrestrial television and have to opt for a satellite service, will the cost of the satellite service, which is currently provided by Sky, be entirely paid for by the scheme? If someone who belongs in what we might term the second class of those eligible for help—the Secretary of State talked about a £40 contribution towards the cost of a digital decoder box—were to need a satellite service as well, would they simply get £40, which is the cost of a digibox, and have to find the rest of the costs for satellite provision themselves? I would like the Minister to provide clarification on those points because they are of considerable importance to my constituents.
	Let me return to the BBC. We have been given many figures about costs. The Secretary of State has settled on a sum of £600 million, but let me raise a question that my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) might be interested in: what would happen if the costs exceeded £600 million? That could happen. Where will the extra money come from? If the cost increases to more than £1 billion, which the director-general at one stage suggested it might, will the BBC have to find the extra £400 million out of its own resources—in which case, as the hon. Member for Selby said, that is bound to have a devastating effect on BBC programme quality? Will the Minister give an assurance that if the costs go over the estimate—or rather the guestimate—of £600 million, the BBC, and consequently the licence payers, will not suffer?
	Finally, I join with other Members in asking for there to be another satellite free-to-air service run by the BBC and the public sector. Although I take my hat off to Sky for what it has done in providing the freesat service, which it did voluntarily, one of the drawbacks for people who have it is that they get bombarded with requests to upgrade to a proper subscription service. Those who do not want a subscription service would be much happier if the BBC were able to go ahead—it would like to do this—with its own satellite service.

Michael Moore: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mrs. James), who has continued the theme of the day. Many different Members in all parts of the House, representing all the various parts of the United Kingdom, have raised specific concerns about what is happening, but in general there is broad support for the Bill, and I wish to echo that approach.
	This is one of the most important developments in television that we will witness for a generation or two. The efforts that have already been madenot least, as many have said, by the BBCto promote digital, to expand its capabilities and to make it into the must-have acquisition for most households show that this is a worthwhile event that we should all embrace. The more that people have got to know about it, the more supportive they have become.
	The hon. Member for Glasgow, North-West (John Robertson) said at the beginning of his contribution that he wanted to be a bit parochial, and if the House does not mind, I wish to be a lot parochial and to focus on what will happen in my constituency and in the Border television region more generally. A number of Members representing the region have already contributed to this debate. The hon. Member for Copeland (Mr. Reed), who chairs the all-party group dealing with digital switchover, made a very important point. He not only highlighted his own constituency's prime place in this process; he said that although this was a great opportunity, he did not want his constituents to be taken for granted. That echoes the recurring theme that many people in the borders expressthat we wish to be pioneers who get this right, not the guinea pigs from whom other people learn. I hope that the Government, the BBC and Digital UK fully understand that point, and I have to say that, thus far, there is a great deal of willingness to pay a fair bit of attention to what is going on in our region.
	The process is very complex and technical, as today's contributions have highlighted. There are some serious technical issues, but serious regulatory ones are also emerging. I have a number of concerns about the broader process of digital switchover, particularly the increasingly obvious fact that there will be some form of two-tier service after switchover, whereby not all the services available to those on freeview will be available to all the people. I was recently taken to task by an industry insider for describing it as a two-tier service; they said that they preferred to use the term, freeview-lite. I said, Well, if you think that that is somehow a better description of what is going on, I am happy to use that term. However, the principle is not altered that some people in Kelso, Jedburgh and Hawick, and in the parts of Galashiels in my constituency, will get a lesser service after switchover than people in other parts of Galashiels, or in Selkirk. It is very hard to make the case that that is somehow fair or appropriate.
	A related matter is what we might call the digital one and a half. The commitment is that a proportion similar to the 98.5 per cent. of the population who currently receive an analogue signal will receive the digital signal from a terrestrial source in due course. Of course, we do not yet know whether the same 1.5 per cent. of the population will be excluded. In addition, there is a strong chance that in rural areas such as the ones that I represent, the 1.5 per cent. figure will in fact be larger. A larger proportion of our constituents will not be able to get digital terrestrial television. I hope that we will be able to identify who they are as soon as possible and work out, as other hon. Members have said, what alternatives can be offered to ensure that they are properly included in the digital switchover.
	Much of the issue involves basic details, as other hon. Members have pointed out. My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) raised the issue of how many remote controls will be available and others have spoken of the internal or external aerial question. I applaud the fact that the Government have tried to set up a proper, organised aerial installation scheme, but months after it was first mentioned, there are no registered members of the scheme in the Border television area that I represent. People are being exhorted by Digital UK to use one of the authorised installers, but they are unable to do so. Many small family businesses and others in the borders have the skills, reputation and the trust of local communities and could do the work technically, but they have been put off by the complexities and costs of the schemes introduced so far. I hope that before it is too late the Government will look again at the issue and consider other ways to roll out a programme that will allow recognised community experts to play a role in that important scheme.
	I inadvertently tripped over another issue about 10 months ago when a constituent asked me whether someone who has a black and white television licence and acquired a freeview box would then need a colour television licence. When he asked that question I do not think that he could have understood just what he would unleash. I wrote to the Secretary of State on 20 January. It is a poor reflection on my internal office practices, but it was 5 May before we chased up that letter. A further follow-up was required on 30 August. In frustration, I tabled a parliamentary question on 9 October, immediately after the House returned from recess. I received a holding answer on 17 October and a response, of sorts, on 15 November, when the Minister said that regrettably it had not been possible to answer my question before the end of the Session. As a sporting gesture I retabled the question as soon as the new Session began and as of 14 December, I received the latest holding answer, which stated:
	I shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible.
	I am grateful for that pledge, but I am slightly worried that it is symbolic of wider issues that will emerge from the digital switchover. I hope that they will receive a swifter response.
	The main focus of the debate is the narrower issue of the financial assistance scheme. Like others, I support the Bill, subject to the safeguards that many others have said that they wish to see, including the spokesman for my party, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes). Ministers are giving us a little more detail, and I welcome that, but it was disappointing that the Secretary of StateI am glad that she is in her placesaid that there will be no retrospection for those who have already purchased their equipment. Digital UK is doing its job in local communities, encouraging people to sign up. Indeed, it would be a fiasco if it were not doing that. Therefore, I do not understand why people who are over 75 or have severe disabilities should be penalised if they have gone ahead of a scheme over which they have no control and put their equipment in place. For relatively modest cost, perhaps through an agreed set payment, that small group, which the Government have already assessed as being eligible, could be compensated retrospectively. Otherwise those people will lose out. At the very least, there will be no incentive for people in that group to switch over ahead of the formal process.
	Another concern that has been raised with me is what the scheme will cover, especially in terms of the organisations that may win the bidding war for the contracts. I accept that the public purse has to be carefully controlled and it is right to have a competitive process, but the chances are that small local businesses, which have the skills and the place in the community, will be excluded because they do not have the scale or ability to compete for those contracts. We have heard no good reason for that and I hope that as the details emerge local small businesses will have a genuine opportunity to have an input into the system.
	I echo the concerns about those who will be excluded, such as the 250,000 who have not applied for pension credit and whom Help the Aged have identified. That is a harsh decision and unnecessary in the circumstances.
	The issues have regularly been discussed in communities all over the country and I have been glad of the support of Digital UK, community council representatives and many others for the Borders digital forum, which has met two or three times. We plan to have some other meetings in the new year so that we have an opportunity to discuss the plans as they are rolled out. I hope that those meetings will continue to have the support of Digital UK and I look forward to the Minister making good on the pledge he gave in the debate in Westminster Hall in July that he would come and speak to representatives in the borders in due course. I am sure that he is looking forward to his visit to south-east Scotland. He has made one offer of a date and I hope that we will be able to sort something out before too long.
	This is a hugely important matter and the breadth of contributions has more than illustrated that. As I said at the beginning, it is important that we get this right and that all the details are sorted out so that we can enjoy all the benefits without any of the downsides.

Graham Stuart: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On my earlier intervention, the Minister kindly agreed to respond in his speech to the question of what would happen if there were overspend on the 600 million estimated cost of the digital changeover. He did not return to that and I wondered whether, through you

James Brokenshire: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) on securing our debate on the new Romford hospital, and I echo the comments of my hon. Friends that it will be an important and valuable asset in the provision of health care in Havering in north-east London and in Essex. However, as the Minister will have gathered from the contributions made this evening, there are concerns. The project management team and the professionals have pulled all the necessary strands together to secure the new hospital, but doubts remain as to the level of provision that will be available in the surrounding areas and what the consequences might be for other facilities in the community.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) highlighted the fit for the future review that is currently being undertaken of hospital facilitiesemergency and acute care facilitiesin north-east London. That covers the new Romford hospital, but also the King George hospital within the same hospital trust, as well as Whipps Cross. As has been explained, there has been a review of capacity and services. From the briefings that I have received, I understand that, as a result of the clinical assessment and now the financial assessment, option 4 has emerged as the favoured option thus far. It would maintain the Romford hospital as the main acute hospital in the area, with Whipps Cross remaining as a district general hospital and King George being an ambulatory care centre.
	It is important to note that the review has taken into account the clinical needs, feedback from the stakeholder groups, and an assessment of the finances moving forward on a current year basis. However, we understand that the review could not, and therefore does not, take into account historical financial deficits within the NHS in this area. So having gone through this whole process, it seems that we may end up with something very different from what is currently being considered. I hope that the Minister will explain what that might mean. In the light of the briefings that I have received from NHS London, it would seem that facilities could be closed, notwithstanding the process that is being gone through. That would put additional strain on the new hospital in Romford, and it raises further questions about its ability to deliver the quality of care that we all hope it will deliver.
	It is worth noting that, in reporting the financial position in London, NHS London itself said that, although it was forecast that the budget for the forthcoming year would put the London area in deficit by some 90 million, according to the latest forecast at the end of month seven, the deficit will be 135 million. So the budget is already 45 million out, which raises the question of what that means for facilities at the Queen's and its ability to deliver quality care for my constituents and those in the surrounding area.
	The question of capacitythe number of bedshas also been raised. The Minister will doubtless reassure us by saying that that is predicated on a different model of carein other words, that facilities will increasingly be directed out into the community to ensure that bed capacity at the new Romford hospital can cope with demand. The sight of a brand new, gleaming hospital will, in itself, draw demand to it, so the capacity issues under examination might have to be factored in in the light of that fact. That is why it is so important that we have high quality primary care facilities in the communityso that we can deliver the different models of care that underpin the capacity modelling put in place in the new Romford hospital. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance tonight that that point has been properly taken into account. The primary care facilities in some parts of my constituency are certainly not fit for purpose. They are not capable of delivering the diagnostics and various other services that will be required if the new Romford hospital is to function in the way intended.
	An associated issue is the step-down care that is provided when people are admitted to the new Romford hospital who may not require the same level and standard of continual care that is needed in the acute setting. Currently, such services are provided in my own constituency at St. George's hospital in Hornchurch, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster said, there are some big question marks over what is going to happen. In conducting a review of intermediate and long-term care bed requirements, the primary care trust narrowed down the options for our community to two. Sixty intermediate and long-term care beds are required to service the needs of people living in Havering, and those beds will either be retained at the St. George's site, or located at the new Romford hospital site. Given the capacity issues that have already been highlighted this evening, it is absolutely crazy even to consider putting the 60 additional beds in the Romford hospital.
	Even if the Minister is unable to give an assurance this evening that that will not happen, I hope that he will consider carefully the two options now on the table in terms of intermediate and long-term care capacity in Havering, so that we can secure the beds and the capacity at St. George's in Hornchurch, because the new Romford hospital will not be able to cope with the additional demand, given the increasing pressures that are already being placed on itas my hon. Friends have pointed out.
	The situation is uncertain and any clarification that the Minister is able to give would be very helpful in making it clear when the issue will be resolved. I know that the fit for the future process is going on and the intermediate and long-term care bed requirement is part of that review, but there are question marks over that process and the underlying deficit issue still has to be addressed. The requirement issue needs to be disaggregated so that we may have certainty about the services, capacity and facilities that will be made available at the new Romford hospital, and so that the doctors, nurses and other staff at St. George's in Hornchurch know what will happen. The primary care trust in Havering sent out a notice only a few weeks ago to all its staff to determine whether any were interested in being made redundant. The trust made no firm commitment to making any redundancies, but the fact that it sought expressions of interest highlights the pressures that have been put on trusts and the valuable staff of the health service. They must know what is going on as quickly as possible, given the impact that the situation is having on morale locally.
	Maternity services are also an issue and I have received complaints from mothers who are upset that they are unable to have their babies at the new Romford hospital because they do not fall into the high-risk category. Low-risk mothers have to go to King George hospital. I hope that the Minister will listen carefully to the concerns that have been expressed by my constituents. Expectant mothers are angry and upset that they will have to travel a considerable distance to have their babies. It is provoking anxiety at a time when they are under stress anyway. They want the choice of where to have their babies.
	There are still some significant challenges in meeting the health care aspirations and needs of people living in our community. It is fantastic that we have that wonderful new facility of the new Romford hospital, but health care is actually delivered by health care professionals and other systems and facilities. Certain areas of provision require huge improvement. I would highlight the pain management clinic, which will continue to be delivered from the new Romford hospital. Two years ago, I raised the concern that it was taking 18 months to receive spinal injections for pain relief at that unit. In the past few weeks, I have discovered that the waiting time is now 19 months. Those are the sorts of issues that arise from the delivery of high quality health care. They have to be addressed through better systems, efficiency and the correct number of health care staff on the front line to deliver the services that my constituents and those of my hon. Friends rightly expect.
	I hope that the Minister will, in responding to the debate, accept that we acknowledge that we have a fantastic and wonderful new facility, which I hope will boost morale and the quality of care received. I hope that he will also recognise that there is still an awful long way to goparticularly on issues such as pain management, where an 18 or 19-month wait to receive treatment to alleviate significant suffering is, frankly, unacceptable. I hope that that will be addressed in the future as the new hospital beds down. I hope that it will be able to deliver the 21st century health care that we want to see and that our constituents rightly expect.

Ivan Lewis: I am not giving way.
	The reality of the NHS that the Conservatives left us in 1997 was bed blockingan annual winter crisis that was the norm, as it was nothing to do with the particular winter in which it occurred. Patients were lying on trolleys for hours in hospitals all over the country, shocking waiting lists [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) laughs, but it was not funny for the patients who experienced it day in, day out, in our national health service.
	There was a criminal shortage of doctors, nurses and training places. There were run-down Victorian buildings and outdated equipment. The hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) has the audacity to talk about the taxpayer making this facility available, so let us be clear what happened during those years. There was moneythe economy was doing reasonably well at timesbut the Conservatives chose to spend that money on tax cuts for those who least needed them rather than invest it in public services and a modern NHS. That is why, when we came to government in 1997, we inherited such a disgraceful NHS.
	Politics is about choices and Conservative Members made their choices when they were in government, and they have made choices in the House when they have come to vote on investment in the national health service. The choices that this Government have made have enabled this brand new, state-of-the-art hospital to be built in the constituency of the hon. Member for Romford. He should have been good enough and honourable enough to have thanked the Government for pursuing these policies of investment in the national health service and public services.
	What we have in the hon. Gentleman's constituency is a 261 million new hospital with 939 beds. The other point that he did not make in his contribution was that it has the flexible capacity for an additional 60 beds if that proves to be needed at some stage in the future and taking account of the concerns that he and other hon. Members have expressed about capacity.
	We must also be honest about wanting to move services in the NHS from the acute end of the system to the preventative end. That means that we should do more and more in the community, primary care settings and closer to home and, in the case of older people, supporting them to remain within the community rather than be hospitalised. These decisions must take account of that.
	There are other points to be made about the project. It was delivered to time, the hospital represents outstanding value for money and the local health economy is saving more than 100 million by having it built under the private finance initiative. It includes an A and E department, intensive therapy, coronary care, high dependency units, a children's ward and a new renal dialysis unit. The hospital has transformed the former brownfield landfill site, which was significantly contaminated prior to construction. Open park spaces and children's playgrounds were also created as part of construction. Those will be used by local residents in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. The populations of the neighbouring boroughs of Barking and Dagenham, which have many social, economic and health problems, will benefit enormously from the modern health care facilities offered at the hospital.
	The release of surplus land at Oldchurch and Harold Wood has provided the opportunity for key worker and affordable housing to be built on the land. As the hon. Member for Upminster said, the new hospital provides far better accommodation, with 20 per cent. single en-suite rooms. The other beds are in four-bed bays with en-suite facilities. As a result of the new hospital, the local population will receive a higher level of regional neurosciences and cancer services than in other parts of England. These services will also attract more highly skilled staff, which will benefit the borough of Havering and neighbouring boroughs.
	I suspect that the hon. Gentleman should have titled his press release this week, A Christmas Present from the Labour Government, but he would not do that because he is intent on coming here to draw attention to the negatives rather than the positives. I want to deal specifically[ Interruption.] No, the hon. Gentleman very cleverly reeled off a list of thank yous and nowhere on that list did he recognise that the hospital was a consequence of political decisions made about political priorities by this Government since they were elected in 1997. Nowhere in his contribution did he reflect that whatever. It is almost as though it happened by chance because a lot of good, nice individuals made it possible. That is true, but it also happened because of the hard political and economic choices that the Government have made since they came to power.
	We are not going to allow the Opposition to get away with the pretence that they have changed. We realise that they have not changed in the slightest when we see that they voted against the extra investment in the NHS and then look at all the other policies that they advocate that will shift resources away from some of our poorest communities to some of our more affluent.
	Let me address the question of the naming of the building. What happened is simple. The local health trust wrote to the Department for Constitutional Affairs and requested that the building be named in a particular way and the DCA responded to that request and the trust did not challenge it or ask for further clarification. It accepted that the name would be as it is today. If the trust, in consultation with the hon. Gentleman and other members of the local community, wishes to raise the question again, the request will be reflected upon and considered. I cannot guarantee that the name will be changed because the matter has to do with the royal family and a variety of facilities have the Queen's name attached to them. However, that option is available if the trust feels strongly about the matter and wants to raise it again.

Ivan Lewis: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not what happened. As I understand it, the trust wrote to the DCA and asked for the name, the Queen Elizabeth II hospital. It did not consult any member of the community or local resident before it put in that request. The DCA responded by saying that it thought that a more appropriate name, in terms of the parameters of the decision making that it has to look at, would be Queens. If the trust wishes to write back to seek clarification or to ask that the matter be considered again, I am sure that the DCA would be willing to have a look at it. But he must not be disingenuousthere was no consultation with the local population about requesting the name, Queen Elizabeth II. I am offering him an option. It is not my decision; it is nothing to do with the Department of Health because it is specifically a request about using the Queen's name.
	A number of other points were made. The hon. Member for Castle Point raised a sensible, legitimate issue about helicopter landing, saving lives and the hospital's role as a trauma establishment. At a local level, there is a need to look at any planning restrictions that get in the way of that facility being used appropriately to save lives. One always has to maintain a balance between the quality of life of local residents and the overriding mission of whatever the local facility is. I am sure that planning matters have to be decided in consultation with the local community and with local politicians. If there are unreasonable and undesirable planning restrictions, it is certainly worth people at a local level responding to the hon. Gentleman's concerns and having a look at that.
	The hon. Member for Upminster talked about it being welcome that there are no longer mixed sex wards. She rightly spoke about the importance of trying to offer maximum sensitivity to all patients, but particularly those undergoing cancer treatment, and the families of those people. It is a traumatic experience for anybody who has to go through that, or anybody who knows people who are going through it, and so the way in which the hospital seeks to be sensitive is important. She was good enough to draw attention to the new arrangements that have been made in terms of location and accessibility in the new hospital.
	The hon. Lady also referred to questions about future consultations on reconfiguration, as did the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire). We have to get to a situation where we create, at a local level, a health service infrastructure that genuinely meets clinical needs and the needs of the relevant local community. It is the responsible role of politicians to engage in those debates, not for short-term political gain, but genuinely based on how one defines clinical need and how one addresses the fact that more and more people can be and want to be treated in the community or as day patients, rather than spending an unnecessarily long time in hospital. If hon. Members can engage in the debate and the consultations in that spirit, I am sure that the outcome for their local communities will be positive rather than negative.
	Recently, Members on the Opposition Front Bench have portrayed any NHS changes as cuts to services. That is disingenuous and misleading. It is simply not true. Often, when the service reconfigurations take place they lead to more investment. Without knowing the local circumstances, I can predict that when it was proposed to build a new hospital on the site and to close two existing hospitals, inevitably there were vociferous campaigns against change and in favour of the status quo. People understandably get emotionally attached to particular institutions and buildings. However, weas community leaders as much as elected politicianshave a responsibility to take a lead on these issues and to work with health professionals and managers to engage with the local community about why change is necessary and how change is best made. We need to achieve a situation in which there is authentic and real consultation, rather than a sense that decisions have been made before there has been any engagement with the local population. In the months ahead, as the consultation exercises roll out, I hope that hon. Members will not only pursue a responsible role in relation to any changes that are proposed, but rightly demand that there is proper and authentic engagement with their constituents and local communities before any outcomes are finalised.
	The hon. Member for Hornchurch raised the question of budgets. I make no apologies for the fact that we are the first Government who have been brave enough to say without blinking to the national health service that we must have budget discipline. All NHS trusts must be managed to the level of the best, with their budgets being managed responsibly within the available resources. I do not think that that should be too much to ask. Yes, that will require tough choices, but surely it is right that, like any other organisation, the NHS is expected to manage within its budget. In the past, it was wrong that NHS organisations that were run efficiently ended up, as a matter of course, bailing out NHS organisations that were not able to manage their budgets appropriately. The Government's insistence on financial discipline in NHS organisations is an extremely important step forward.
	In taking the opportunity to wish hon. Members and you, Mr. Speaker, if you do not mind, a happy Christmas and a new year that people would want for themselves, may I say that it is a source of celebration that the hon. Member for Romford has a brand new, state-of-the-art hospital serving the needs of his constituents? The same applies to other hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. It has never been part of the Government's case that every single element of the NHS is perfect in hon. Members' communities or nationally. However, it is right at the heart of our case that these new hospital developments have not happened by chance. They have happened as a consequence of the political priorities and choices of a Government who are investing record amounts in the national health service. As a consequence, we are rebuilding a health service that, frankly, was left in an appalling state by the Conservative party.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes to Ten o'clock.